One of the horror genre's "most widely read critics" (Rue Morgue # 68), "an accomplished film journalist" (Comic Buyer's Guide #1535), and the award-winning author of Horror Films of the 1980s (2007), The Rock and Roll Film Encyclopedia (2007) and Horror Films of the 1970s (2002), John Kenneth Muir, presents his blog on film, television and nostalgia, named one of the Top 100 Film Studies Blog on the Net.

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Cult-Movie Review: A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987)

A
Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987) is the second-most important title in the
entire Freddy franchise.

Wes Craven’s 1984
original introduces audiences to Freddy Krueger and the “die in your dream, die
in reality’ paradigm, of course.

But Dream
Warriors cements the rules of the dream world that Freddy must abide by,
and furthermore, reveals how teenagers can take back their dreams from
Freddy's control.

By
comparison, A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge (1985) is a kind
of quasi-intriguing one-off with many laudable qualities including the “homosexual
panic” subplot I enumerated in my review yesterday. Yet it is clear that the movie
suffers some because the rules of Freddy’s universe have not been established.

Commendably,
Dream
Warrior provides the movie franchise the juice that it needs to continue
through many movie entries, changing imperiled teenagers into full-fledged combatants rather than just
victims.

That’s a huge and valuable distinction: a transformation that affects the franchise dramatically. At the same time that the film morphs victims
into combatants, Dream Warriors also changes the field or terrain of battle. No longer are the dream sequences but (inventive)
blood-baths, like in the Craven original, but full-fledged fantasy landscapes.

I remember that the late critic Roger Ebert once
asked why teenagers would like slasher movies in the eighties, since they depict a
world in which teens die on a regular basis.
He even called these movies “dead teenager” films.

Yet Dream
Warriors provides the answer for those who seek it. Freddy, and the adults of Elm Street are corrupt individuals. They have created a world of
danger and death for the next generation.
The teenagers fighting Freddy, however, learn to self-actualize; how to
channel their psychologies, strengths and personalities towards -- if not constructive -- at
least defensive ends.

Contra Ebert, the Elm
Street movies posit hope, not despair. Fight hard against Freddy -- become a dream warrior, or dream master -- and you
literally remake the world according to your dreams. Of course, you have to go through Krueger Therapy to succeed. He pinpoints your vulnerabilities, like addiction, physical handicap, or a history of domestic abuse, and comes at you based on that knowledge. If you're weak, and can't beat your "demons," you lose. If you're strong enough, like Nancy, Kristen, or Alice, you can succeed.

As quoted in Schoell and Spenser's The Nightmare Never Ends: The Official History of Freddy Kreuger and the Nightmare on Elm Street Films (Citadel Press, 1991, page 187) Robert Englund described the Freddy vs. Teens dynamic trenchantly.
He observed the following:

“This is the first time in the 20th century that kids will probably not live as well as their parents. You can imagine what it is like to be 17...and enter a world with a drug culture and hardly any jobs on the horizon and AIDS and racial unrest...Freddy represents all of these things that are out of kilter in the world, all the sins of the parents that are being passed on.”

I
believe Englund is on to something important here, as was critic Judith Williamson, who wrote in
the New Statesman that the Elm Street films speaks about “both
sex and class – about what has been buried by a suburban American community.”

In other words, Freddy toughens these teenagers up, in a sense, and arms them for a world in which he is hardly the only demon they must vanquish. These teenagers often lose, but many of them develop their dream skills and give Mr. Krueger a run for his money.

There
are problems with this new approach to the franchise, of course.

In Dream Warriors, a set of rules are still being established, as is a
whole new continuity, and there are some baffling oversights and unexplained
events.

Similarly, the tendency to make
Freddy funny rather than terrifying effectively clips the boogeyman’s finger knives a
bit. No longer hiding in the shadows, he’s
the ultimate showman, always ready with a joke, or a savage turnaround when
presumed defeated.

In Dream Warriors, Freddy is more a Loki-like specter of mischief and mayhem than a sick,
dirty, monstrous creature. This makes him a more mainstream monster, but also one finds it more and more difficult to legitimately terrify his audience.

I
screened Dream Warriors again for this review and found, surprisingly,
that a lot of the special effects have aged quite badly, perhaps more than in any
other franchise entry.

Some of the
optical processing work -- Joey dangling over the pit of Hell, for example -- doesn’t look
so good. Similarly, the film's stop-motion sequence with a Freddy skeleton looks awful (and compares unfavorably with Ray Harryhausen's work going back to the 1950s.)

That’s a shame, because Dream
Warriors success is largely predicated on two factors: the
transformation of the children from victims to combatants, and a showcase of
their battles against Freddy (representing corrupt adulthood). When the battles look bad or inept, the film no longer
operates as successfully. The fantasy aspect of the film, which once upon a time seemed so dazzling, looks far more pedestrian today.

Still,
Dream
Warriors is undeniably a turning point for the franchise. The next two movies -- Dream Master and The
Dream Child -- practically write themselves because of the changes and
ideas enacted for this second sequel, from director Chuck Russell.

"How much longer are you going to go on blaming your dreams for your own weaknesses?"

In reality, however, she is being haunted by Springwood’s resident
boogeyman, Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund). Capturing the souls of his victims, he is more powerful than ever.

Parker
is tended to at the clinic by kindly but ineffective Dr. Neil Gordon (Craig Wasson),
at least until a pioneer in dream research, Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp)
arrives on the scene to help.

For years, this former Elm Street denizen has been avoiding Freddy’s presence in her dreams by taking an experimental
drug called Hypnocil. Now, Nancy wants to prescribe that drug not only to
Kristen, but to all the teens on the ward whom Freddy is terrorizing.

This
group includes a boy who has stopped talking, named Joey (Rodney Eastman), an
artistic type, Phillip (Bradley Craig) who carves puppet, and Jennifer
(Penelope Sudrow), a girl who dreams of making it big in Hollywood.

Other residents include former drug addict Taryn
(Jennifer Rubin), Will (Ira Heiden), a boy confined to a wheel-chair, and last-but-not-least - the strong but surly Kincaid (Ken Sagoes).

While
Nancy attempts to teach these troubled teens how to harness their dream powers
and fight Freddy on his own turf, she also works with Dr. Gordon, and her alcoholic father,
Detective Thompson (John Saxon), to put Freddy’s corporeal body -- his bones --
to rest in hallowed ground.

"Why should we fight? We're old friends, you and I."

I
have to confess, some factors just really harsh my mellow about Dream
Warriors. The film is
brilliantly inventive in the way it demonstrates teens self-actualizing; confronting their psychological traumas and hardships and “owning” them for a
life-and-death struggle against Freddy Krueger. I love that quality of the film. I love how this film tells kids that they can survive even the worst (living) nightmares.

So
it is frustrating as hell at the number of oversights and discontinuities that make it into the
film.

For example, take Phillip’s
death. He’s the kid who makes
puppets. Freddy kills him by yanking out
his veins (in a dream), and transforming him into a human puppet. But dreams equal reality in this world, so in real life, we
see Phillip "sleepwalking" out of his room, towards the hospital’s high bell
tower, where Freddy will cut the strings and send him plummeting to his
death. All this is great. The scene is visually brawny in its depiction of this grotesque death, with long licorice-like
veins getting ripped and tugged out of Phillip’s body, for example.

But
then, Phillip de-materializes as he goes through hospital doors. Twice.

How
exactly does that work? How does Freddy
transform Phil from tangible matter to intangible matter? This moment sticks out like a sore thumb and
is a clear violation of Freddy’s rules. He shouldn’t be able to affect the waking
world, or a victim in this fashion. It's fine that he uses Philip's character quirk (puppets) against him, but not fine that he beams Philip in and out of our world.

There are all kinds of
creative alternatives, too. Phillip
could have jumped out his own window. We
could have seen him sneak to the bell tower before bed. Or we could have seen
him pushing through the open doors, the puppet strings invisible (as they
should be) in our reality. It's just lazy and dumb for the filmmakers to have him disappear through a door, like either the door isn't real, or he isn't real.

Similarly,
it’s clear that part of theElm Streetequation is the idea that adults can’t
help the imperiled teens. Nancy's Mom and Dad are alcoholics. Alice's dad is an alcholic too. The films feature generation warfare, in a sense, then. The parents are too busy drinking or shacking
up to note the truth of things that Nancy digs for. Yet this idea of distracted, unperceptive adults can be handled with a degree of nuance and subtlety as it is in the 1984
film.

Not so here.

Consider
Jennifer’s (admittedly) amusing death. Freddy crams
her head into a TV set hanging high off a wall, after his own head sprouts from the boob-tube and grows
antenna ears.

Of course, I love the humor in this
death scene. I enjoy that it commences with Dick Cavett skewering Zsa Zsa Gabor. But
the punctuation is ridiculous. Why? Jennifer's death is ruled a suicide.

No person
in his or her right mind could enter the common room, see Jennifer hanging
several feet in the air (her head lodged inside a TV set), and assume that she
committed suicide. To kill herself in this fashion, she would have had to run, jump, and launch herself into the
TV set at quite a velocity.

And
even if she did that, it’s more than likely she’d just bruise her head, not
break the TV screen with her skull. It’s
patently absurd that this weird demise could ever be considered suicide by people
who possess even a little gray matter. So yes, the adults are supposed to be disconnected from the struggles of the children. But they ain't supposed to be dumb as stumps.

Similarly,
Freddy carves the words “Come in and get him bitch” in Joey’s chest, but nobody
bothers to show the words to the doubting Dr. Simms (Priscilla Pointer). I would have loved to hear her explanation
about how a comatose patient managed to carve these letters on his own chest!

Again, a horror movie -- even an amusing one, even one rooted in some fantasy elements -- must play fair. There's no way someone could write off Joey's scars as being psychological in nature. And similarly, there's no reason why Nancy and Dr. Gordon wouldn't use Joey's scars to prove to Simms their case.

Instead, the scars are just for good creepy effect, but with no real follow-up or follow-through.

And that’s a shame, because the
message that the movie has for teens is empowering, and indeed, inspiring. In life, there will also be vultures (like
Freddy), and doubters (like Simms, or Det. Thompson), but it doesn’t matter...because the power to defeat them, or to prove them wrong, rests in you.

Cultivate your inner power -- your strength -- and you can beat back the
monsters. This message is transmitted
even more plainly in Dream Master (1988), but
it’s here in this film, and valuable. The things that take away from it, things like sloppy plotting (Jennifer committing "suicide" by TV, or Phillip becoming intangible), do the film a tremendous disservice.

The
Dream Warriors not only harness their own powers, they learn to work as a team,
and that too is an important element of the film’s thematic approach. It’s not just “me” that counts, it’s the combined
power of me and you. And in the “Greed
is Good” eighties, very few movies were putting forward ideas like that; that the
bad guy can be defeated through self-actualization and team dynamics.

It
can be debated, I suppose, how good Freddy’s origin story, as depicted here,
really is. We learn that he is the “bastard
son of a hundred maniacs,” and therefore a product of genetic evil. He was born with bad genes.

Personally, I think this idea is a little
goofy. For one thing, only one sperm can
fertilize an egg, so Freddy is really just the bastard son of a single maniac,
hyperbole by damned.

For another, this
genetic sourcing of Freddy’s evil takes away something significant from the character. Now he is not the accumulation of his choices
and decisions, but wired to be evil from the very beginning.

I
much prefer the idea that he is a cowardly, monstrous child-killer by
predilection, but one given God-like powers only after death. It’s never made sense to me to make him “evil”
from conception, but there’s no doubt that’s how the series -- from this point
forward – sees him. There’s something
very two-dimensional and cartoonish about this idea that Freddy is like a devil
or demon on Earth before becoming a ghostly revenger. If he's so overtly evil and anti-social, how does he ever get a job as a school custodian? Or any job for that matter?

The Freddy origin story also gives the series problems going forward,
continuity-wise. Sister Amanda Krueger
appears here for the first time, but recurs in The Dream Child in 1989, and there we
see her give birth to Freddy in the asylum, which we are told has been shut
down for years…despite the fact that it houses a medical facility and patients in 1987’s Dream
Warriors.

Working
much better, at least for me, is the rematch between Freddy and Nancy Thompson. I get chills every time I watch Dream
Warriors, and these former combatants lay eyes upon one another for the first
time in years.

“You!” Freddy gurgles, as Nancy screams with recognition at the sight of her nemesis. She believed she had
escaped him by pharmaceutical means -- Hypnocil -- and he believed that she was lost
to him too. It’s great to see these classic opponents meet
up again, though I can’t stand that Freddy gets the better of Nancy in the finale. (Note. If I have to be honest about this, I will admit that I am a bit in love with Nancy Thompson, played by Langenkamp. Have been since 1984!)

Overall, Dream
Warriors is an
inventive Freddy film, and many insist it is the second best in the
series.

Personally, I would land New
Nightmare (1994) in that slot.

But I can’t deny the importance of the
third Freddy film in the overall franchise. It goes a long way towards setting the parameters of the franchise going forward. Even though there are some hiccups, it sets the terrain and the rules for the next several Elm Street sequels to come.

No comments:

Post a Comment

About John

award-winning author of 27 books including Horror Films FAQ (2013), Horror Films of the 1990s (2011), Horror Films of the 1980s (2007), TV Year (2007), The Rock and Roll Film Encyclopedia (2007), Mercy in Her Eyes: The Films of Mira Nair (2006),, Best in Show: The Films of Christopher Guest and Company (2004), The Unseen Force: The Films of Sam Raimi (2004), An Askew View: The Films of Kevin Smith (2002), The Encyclopedia of Superheroes on Film & Television (2004), Exploring Space:1999 (1997), An Analytical Guide to TV's Battlestar Galactica (1998), Terror Television (2001), Space:1999 - The Forsaken (2003) and Horror Films of the 1970s (2002).

Follow by Email

What the Critics Say...

"...some of the best writing about the genre has been done by John Kenneth Muir. I am particularly grateful to him for the time and attention he's paid to things others have overlooked, under-appreciated and often written off. His is a fan's perspective first, but with a critic's eye to theme and underscore, to influence and pastiche..." - Chris Carter, creator of The X-Files, in the foreword to Horror Films FAQ (October 2013).

"Hands down, John Kenneth Muir is one of the finest critics and writers working today. His deep analysis of contemporary American culture is always illuminating and insightful. John's film writing and criticism is outstanding and a great place to start for any budding writer, but one should also examine his work on comic books, TV, and music. His weighty catalog of books and essays combined with his significant blog production places him at the top of pop culture writers. Johns work is essential in understanding the centrality of culture in modern society." - Professor Bob Batchelor, cultural historian and Executive Director of the James Pedas Communication Center at Thiel College (2014).

"...an independent film scholar, [Muir] explains film studies concepts in a language that is reader-friendly and engaging..." (The Hindu, 2007)"...Muir's genius lies in his giving context to the films..." (Choice, 2007)